Nonprofit Marketing

Helmig, Bernd; Thaler, Julia

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5707-8_12

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gwin () refers to resource generators, managers/staff members and service users. Helmig and Thaler () depict donors, internal customers (i.e. the work force), indirect customers and direct customers.…”

Section: Nonprofit Stakeholder Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting nonprofit stakeholders to enable successful relationship marketing: a review

Rupp

Kern

Helmig

2014

J of Philanthropy and Mktg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When establishing relationships with stakeholders, nonprofit organizations must define appropriate target groups to allocate resources purposively. This paper explicates that link by reviewing the literature on nonprofit stakeholder segmentation and by discussing whether stakeholder segmentation is perceived as a prerequisite of successful relationship marketing by nonprofit researchers. We develop two conceptual dimensions of nonprofit stakeholder segmentation: the stakeholders segmented and the segmentation criteria used. A systematic database and journal search yielded 53 papers, categorized according to these two dimensions. The studies are described briefly, and the relevance of the relationship marketing concept is examined and discussed. Several research gaps emerge from this review, leading to propositions for further research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Nonprofit Stakeholder Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting nonprofit stakeholders to enable successful relationship marketing: a review

Rupp

Kern

Helmig

2014

J of Philanthropy and Mktg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is evident in many service industries and should transfer to nonprofit relationships (Helmig and Thaler 2010). For example, Wisner et al (2005) find that satisfied volunteers are more likely to remain with the organization longer, donate more, and recommend the volunteer experience to others.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, a nonprofit setting features both membership and individual relationship elements. Finally, deeper knowledge about the relevance of identification-based constructs in different nonprofit relationships could help nonprofit managers implement successful donor acquisition, retention, and recovery strategies (Helmig and Thaler 2010). With these arguments, we aim to answer three main research questions: Research Question 1: How do donor-nonprofit identification and donor identity salience together function in satisfaction-loyalty studies? Research Question 2: Which conceptual model best represents both new and existing relationships featuring the two identification constructs in relation to donor orientation, satisfaction, loyalty, and donation behavior? Research Question 3: What explanatory power does donor-nonprofit identification and donor identity salience have, beyond the influence of donor satisfaction, for donor loyalty and donor behavior? In the next section, we propose a conceptual framework to represent the unexplored and underexplored links we introduce.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Donors Donate?

Boenigk

Helmig

2013

Journal of Service Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With an empirical study in two nonprofit industries (a money-collecting and blood-collecting organization), the authors investigate how organizational identification and identity salience together function in relation to satisfaction, loyalty, and behavior. They develop and test a model that best represents relationships featuring donor-nonprofit identification and donor identity salience in existing satisfaction-loyalty studies. Overall, the study empirically confirms that donor-nonprofit identification and donor identity salience are distinct constructs and that both have direct positive effects on loyalty, but not that much on donations. Within the money donation context, both identification constructs have stronger total effects on donor loyalty than donor satisfaction, whereas in the blood donation context, donor satisfaction has a stronger effect on loyalty. In testing the causal direction between donor-nonprofit identification and donor satisfaction, the authors also find that the path should be conceptualized from satisfaction to identification. The study contributes to the theory of organizational identification and identity salience by highlighting the advantages of taking a combined theoretical approach. Finally, the study suggests several means to implement donor identification management, including group activities, development of online communities, donor events, and more long-term-oriented tactics, all of which treat the donor as a cocreator of value.

show abstract

“…donor (member) relationship strategy that implements various donation levels with increasing benefits. Helmig 2013;Helmig and Thaler 2010;Paswan and Troy 2004;Tidwell 2005). However, a donor priority strategy also might have negative effects (Harrison-Walker 2010;Homburg, Droll, and Totzek 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%